# This Singapore Couple Sued Their Condo’s MCST After Termites Damaged Their Home — Here’s Who Won

- **Source:** Stacked Homes
- **Published:** 2026-07-19T12:21:01.000Z
- **Author:** Sihan Chia
- **Original:** https://stackedhomes.com/singapore-couple-sued-their-condos-mcst-after-termites-damaged-their-home/
- **Topics:** Private Residential

## Featured rationale

The ruling signals broader MCST accountability for common-property maintenance and may encourage condominium owners and management bodies to scrutinise preventive maintenance practices more closely.

## AI summary

A court awarded Freesia Woods owners $10,978 in damages and over $42,000 in legal costs after finding their MCST failed to prevent termites in common property.

## Original article

In what might be the first of its kind case brought to the courts in Singapore, the failure of a condominium’s Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) to deal with termites resulted in a stiff penalty of over $42,000 in legal fees and disbursements to the wronged party.

While other types of condo management and maintenance issues have arisen in the past, this seems to be the first case that involves termites damaging parts of a homeowner’s property. Legal troubles involving a condo’s MCST and property owners underline the importance of this two-way partnership, and the highlights of this case should catch the eye of other condo owners.

The trouble started in December 2023 when Glenford Tan and his wife Vivian Loo, who own a unit on the fifth-floor at Freesia Woods, discovered a termite infestation in their home. Freesia Woods is a 129-unit condo at 61 Sunset Way in District 21, and the freehold project was completed in 2003.

The damage to the couple’s home included extensive damage to their wooden cabinets.

It was eventually discovered that these insects had burrowed their way up the building after they were nesting on the ground floor of the property. The responsibility of managing and maintaining this common area belongs to the condo’s MCST.

In 2025, the couple filed a lawsuit to claim damages from the damage to their property, as well as to take the MCST to task for its failure in reasonably maintaining the common property of the condo – specifically, by not preventing termites from nesting in the common property soil.

Now, the MCST didn’t dispute the fact that termites were found in the home. But they claimed that an unauthorised kitchen sink on the roof terrace of the couple’s unit created damp conditions which made the environment prone to termite infestation.

(In short, the MCST was arguing that it wasn’t underground termites – which would place the blame on them for not eradicating them on the ground floor – and it was damp wood termites)

According to court records, the dispute escalated to the point where the couple felt they needed to hire an expert witness, entomologist Teh Jo Leen, who testified that the termites came from the ground and were nesting in the common property soil after doing a site inspection. In the same visit, she also found extensive subterranean termite activity across the common property including the area near the gym.

Evidence by the lawyers of the MCST were unacceptable

When we read the court records, it seems like the lawyers for the MCST didn’t offer convincing evidence to prove their point. In fact, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun, who oversaw the case, noted that their lawyers didn’t inspect the property, but instead relied on a brief footage of termites at the property.

The judge also pointed out other failings by the usual pest control firm appointed by the MCST of Freesia Woods. Despite attending to the condo fortnightly for years, the pest control company, Lucky Pest, failed to detect the widespread subterranean termite activity that Teh found on a single inspection.

The judge also took issue with the fact that the owner of Lucky Pest, Chaudhry Muhammad, was even put forward by the lawyers for the MCST to give expert evidence. Judge Chiah called out the fact that Chaudhry – as the owner of the pest control firm hired by the MCST – has a personal interest in securing a favourable outcome for the MCST side.

And when cross-examined, Chaudhry admitted that he didn’t possess the relevant scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge or expertise to assist the court on the issues upon which he purported to give expert evidence. For us, the most concerning part of this debacle is that it appears this ‘expert opinion’ was in fact written by the lawyers of the MCST.

Takeaways from this case

A key observation that was brought up during this case was that parts of the legislation in the Building Strata Management Act 2004 and what constitutes as “maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair common areas” can be up for debate.

In this case, it really boiled down to whether the MCST had taken adequate preventive measures to contain a manageable issue in a common area, before it developed into a full-blown infestation affecting residents in their own home.

In turn, the judge did find that the MCST failed in its duty, and awarded the couple’s claim of $10,978 for the damage of their property. It comprises the costs of dismantling and replacement of infested carpentry works and related necessary work of reinstalling items that could be reused.

In his ruling on the case, which was the first reported case regarding an MCST’s duty on preventing termite infestation in common areas, Judge Chiah ordered the MCST to compensate the couple their full claim amount, as well as over $42,000 in legal costs and disbursements incurred in the lawsuit.

What this case reflected was the extent of the accountability that condo MCSTs can be held to perform their duties even beyond perceived set boundaries. In this case, the damage was done to a condo unit’s interiors but the source of aggravation came from a common property area, which was under the MCST’s jurisdiction.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 这对新加坡夫妇因白蚁毁损住宅起诉共管公寓管委会——结果谁赢了

一对Freesia Woods夫妇因白蚁毁损橱柜起诉其管委会（MCST），法院裁定法团未妥善维护共用产业后，判给10,978新元损害赔偿及逾42,000新元诉讼费用。

在这起可能是新加坡法院审理的同类首案中，共管公寓分层地契管理法团（Management Corporation Strata Title，MCST）未能处理白蚁问题，最终被判向受害方支付逾42,000新元的律师费及杂费的严厉代价。

尽管过去也曾出现其他类型的共管公寓管理与维修争议，但这似乎是首起涉及白蚁毁损业主物业部分的案件。涉及共管公寓管委会与业主的法律纠纷凸显了这种双向伙伴关系的重要性，本案要点应引起其他共管公寓业主的注意。

麻烦始于2023年12月：在日落路61号（District 21）Freesia Woods五楼拥有单位的Glenford Tan与妻子Vivian Loo发现家中白蚁为患。Freesia Woods是共129个单位的共管公寓，该永久地契项目于2003年竣工。

夫妇家中的损坏包括木制橱柜的大范围毁损。

最终查明，这些昆虫在物业地面层筑巢后，一路向上钻入建筑。管理与维护这一共用区域的责任属于该共管公寓的管委会。

2025年，夫妇提起诉讼，要求就其物业损坏索赔，并追究管委会未能合理维护共管公寓共用产业的责任——具体而言，未能防止白蚁在共用产业土壤中筑巢。

管委会并未否认家中发现白蚁。但他们声称，夫妇单位屋顶露台有未经授权的厨房水槽，造成潮湿环境，易引来白蚁侵害。

（简言之，管委会主张并非地下白蚁——否则责任会落在他们未能在地面层根除——而是潮湿木材白蚁）

根据法院记录，争议升级到夫妇认为有必要聘请专家证人、昆虫学家Teh Jo Leen；她在现场视察后作证称，白蚁来自地面，并在共用产业土壤中筑巢。同一次视察中，她还在包括健身房附近在内的共用产业发现大范围地下白蚁活动。

管委会律师的证据不被接受

我们阅读法院记录时发现，管委会律师似乎未能提出令人信服的证据证明其论点。事实上，主审此案的地区法官Chiah Kok Khun指出，他们的律师并未视察物业，而是依赖一段物业中白蚁的简短录像。

法官亦指出Freesia Woods管委会长期委任的灭虫公司的其他失职。尽管Lucky Pest多年来每两周到访一次，该公司仍未能发现Teh一次视察即发现的广泛地下白蚁活动。

法官也对管委会律师推举Lucky Pest老板Chaudhry Muhammad提供专家证据一事提出异议。Chiah法官指出，Chaudhry作为受雇于管委会的灭虫公司老板，对管委会一方取得有利结果有个人利益。

而在盘问中，Chaudhry承认自己并不具备相关科学、技术或其他专门知识或专长，无法就他声称提供专家证据的议题协助法院。对我们而言，这起闹剧最令人担忧的部分是：这份“专家意见”似乎实际上是由管委会律师撰写的。

本案启示

本案中提出的一个关键观察是：《2004年建筑物分层管理法令》（Building Strata Management Act 2004）中部分条文，以及何谓“维护并保持共用区域处于良好且可使用的维修状态”，仍可能存在争议空间。

在本案中，关键在于管委会是否已采取充分预防措施，在共用区域将可控问题遏制在居民自住单位爆发全面虫害之前。

法官最终认定管委会未尽职责，并判给夫妇所主张的10,978新元物业损坏赔偿。该金额包括拆除及更换受侵木工工程的费用，以及重新安装可再利用物品的相关必要工程。

在其裁决中——这是首起有关管委会防止共用区域白蚁侵害职责的已报道案件——Chiah法官下令管委会向夫妇全额赔偿索赔金额，以及诉讼中产生的逾42,000新元律师费及杂费。

本案反映了共管公寓管委会在履行职责方面可被追究责任的程度，甚至超出人们认知中的界限。本案中，损坏发生在共管公寓单位内部，但问题源头来自共用产业区域，而该区域属管委会管辖范围。